"Hetware" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:h-idnRl8i4LRmdrPnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@megapath.net...
>I'm reading a 1953 edition of Thomas's Calculus and Analytic Geometry. In it he >states that given: >F(t) = (t^2-9)/(t-3)
>F(t) = (t-3)(t+3)/(t-3) = t+3 when t!=3.
>But F(t) is not defined at t=3 because it evaluates to 0/0
>If someone were to ask me if (t^2-9)/(t-3) is defined when t=3, I would say it >is because it can be simplified to t+3. Am I (and/or Thomas) engaging in >meaningless hair-splitting regarding the question of F(3) being defined?
F(3) is not defined (0/0) but F(t) can be made continuous at 3 by reducing the fraction.